you know whats really stupid, in new zealand we have a non nuclear decleration or some shit, that says we wont build nuclear power plants or allow any for of nuclear device,(weapon or nuclear powered ship) into our waters, but we need more power plants to meet our growing demand. and as wind power still sucks and people are protesting a dam proposal becuase it will flood a valley. we could have more then enough power if we would just build a single nuclear power station. and.....
There is no rational argument here, no positive solution just a derogatory snide voice over. "Feel the fear of nukes and then join the(/our) revolution" is the subtext. Sadly I remember when Greenpeace did interesting work. Now Greenpeace is just so dogmatic and so entrenched in their anti-nuke position I doubt they can ever get back to rational discussion.
Much of the threat we face from climate change is because Greenpeace stops us building nuclear power stations to replace fossil fuel power stations. Then, when the CO2 numbers keep going up they can bully us into giving them money. Just like any other protection racket -- the threat we pay to be "protected" from comes from those demanding the money in the first place!
Energy revolution ? There is only one potential source of energy that would cause revolution and that's FUSION, not some UNRELIABLE wind or solar, energy... those technologies are based on temporary - natural sources, what about solar energy in night ? or wind during heat wave - high pressure area, with no wind ?
The RBMK reactor (the only type which can suffer a Chernobyl-type catastrophe) was banned in the West right from the beginning because of its dangers -- you just don't use water cooling and graphite moderation in the same reactor!
And did you know that those deformed babies that the anti-nukes love to parade for their campaigns were caused by foetal alcohol syndrome not radiation? Their pregnant mothers drank to excess while pregnant due to anti-nuclear fearmongering...
Correction: This video is unreliable. I did not see any evidence supporting the arguments stated, nor do I trust the information presented at Greenpeace. Its one thing to state your opinion, but not backing it up and using fear as evidence. Is plain cheating.
@22ness0hayden "The amount of spent fuel removed annually from the approximately 100 reactors in the U.S. would fill a football field to a depth of one foot." -Oracle ThinkQuest Education Foundation Therefore, we've been using nuclear energy for about 50 years, filling a stadium 50 feet up.
@noptig That's like a kids website?!? I can't find where they claim that but I don't think there will any stats to back it up as it sounds inaccurate. Watch "Into Etertinity" and see what you think of the Finnish estimate - 300,000 tonnes worldwide and growing! Bear in mind this waste will still be dangerous to future generations in 1000 years time!!!
@noptig You don't seem to comprehend that this stuff will be around longer than your bloodline, maybe even longer than the human species. You don't seem to comprehend that the land will change in that time, possibly opening up any such vaults. You don't seem to grasp that it is around people between plant and storage. You don't seem to grasp that it will build up and up, by larger and larger amounts if we were full-nuclear. You have no comprehension whatsoever of the topic at hand. STFU.
@Haminette Yes I don't know anything about nuclear energy because I forgot I didn't do a Physics Honors final project about Nuclear energy, and then take a test on it. What do tree huggers do for fun? Drive their prius around all day? My physics honors teacher is a huge tree hugger, and drives a prius, and couldn't agree more with expanding nuclear energy.
Yes, because he actually wants what's best for the environment, not to ensure that the environmental hazards AREN'T dealt with in order to keep to donations flowing in. Greenpeace is a money-making racket.
Australia (large areas with almost no population, dry climate, no major geological faults) would be a good place to bury radioactive waste. Or better, we should use fast breeder reactors to burn up the long-lived transuranic elements, leaving only fission products which become harmless within 300 years. This will also make far more efficient use of our resources, as would thorium reactors which don't generate transuranic waste in the first place.
Nuclear waste = not an issue. Can be stored. Only a little of it. No effect to the environment. Spillage = negligible problem when compared to other energy sources and can be dealt with. Chernobyl = Not an issue. It's hyped up for more than it was. It's the only major nuclear failure. We don't stop people from driving cars because it's an "unreliable" way of getting around since hundreds of people die each year from it. Greenpeace propaganda at its finest.
Wow these people are really stupid. I really think that they just cherry pick through the facts and use them to their advantage. Burning coal is way more harmful to the environment then nuclear energy.
Heavy water is a fact. Canada has loads of tritium in its water, that's just not good at all. Nuclear would be great if we had fusion, but right now (with fission) it's not advisable.
Three-Mile Island was corrected and fixed after a partial meltdown. Most nulcear waste is stored underground where it cannot affect anything near it. Or recycled.
This could easily be the ascension from very dirty coal or oil powered plants.
Those who fear changes in life try their best to stop these changes, these idiots and the power to manifest a group of people can become dangerous. We need to stop this festering of idiots.
There's no such thing as good or bad when it comes to the products of science. One cannot label nuclear energy as bad simply because of its destructive potential without considering the benefits that can be reaped from its use. The good or bad nature of power sources would be DEPENDENT ON HOW HUMANITY USES IT, and that would include nuclear power, hydroelectric energy, geothermal energy, fossil fuel use, and even solar and wind power. All of these have adverse effects on us or the environment.
The argument that the pro-nuclear, pro-coal, etc pontiffs NEVER make is JUSTICE: why should those who do NOT want nuclear power be forced to suffer from accidents & costs created by the nuclear lobby?
Each person should be allowed to pick their own poison - death by freezing, coal, nuclear, decapitation by windmill, falling off solar roof etc.
Problem is: nuclear, coal, oil people force THEIR poison on others FAR more than the windmill, solar, etc folks EVER have.
Even if the nuclear waste problem were magically solved tomorrow, the cost of creating nuclear plants is so overwhelmingly idiotic and insane. It will impoverish the planet.
Really stupid "have every form of energy in the mix just to have it in the mix" policy, when some of those forms - nuclear, biofuels, "clean" coal - have been proven wasteful and polluting.
ALL effort should go ONLY solar, wind, geothermal, and wave energy - AND reduced population & consumption.
@duck24x YOU ARE SO NAIVE! if you really think nuclear energy costs more than ANY other source of energy you should really do some research on the internet. FYI its about 0.3 cents per kWh for nuclear energy vs 8,47 DOLLAR per kWh for solar energy. your stupidity annoys me
@LeonOfich Add in the costs of cleanup of places like Chernobyl & Three Mile Island. Costs that come out of taxes. Same for massive oil spills like the Exxon Valdez & BP in the Gulf of Mexico. Before spewing shit from corporate propaganda religion, add in ALL the costs that never get internalized. Tell your theories of cost to the people who lost their livelihoods due to the Exxon Valdez, which Exxon still has not paid them back for.
but most nuclear energy plants are already made, so right now they are saving money
also solar and wind take up huge amounts of land and costs lots of money to construct. Also they arent stable enough to support a country on their own. Also wave power and wind power hurt many many animals
It is not irrational to fear a energy source which could wipe out millions of people one on terror attack. Was it irrational of Victims of Hiroshima to fear nuclear radiation affects. What are on about? How on earth can it save humanity when it kills more people than any other energy source when an accident occurs. You are a dogmatic extremist.
You are the enemy of the people who will die form this energy source and suffer mutations.
Please Please Please be more cynical Evgenia Stepanova, of the Ukrainian government's Scientific Center for Radiation Medicine, has said: "We're overwhelmed by thyroid cancers, leukemias and genetic mutations that are not recorded in the WHO data and which were practically unknown 20 years ago." The WHO is a political body corrupted by poilitical conderations. Why can't you be more cynical of the nuclear lobby what is in it for you?
No the UN report as I have said is a consenus report with political influences rather than facts, where they took the figure from the nuclear industry and the health organization and did a consensus figure it is like taking a consensus report between a health organization and tobacco companies on how many people cigarettes kill.
An airliner attack would easily break down such walls and cause nuclear accidents. A10 inch steel wall would not protect. Look at a bunker buster bomb,
faithdelusion Ofcourse a book giving the case for nuclear power will give the lower estimates. You ignore the higher estimates. You are looking the UN consensus report. There are many estimates that are higher that you book casually ignores.,
250,000 people died as a result of Chernobyl according g to health experts the nuclear industry claim less than 100 people died. I suppose you believe tobacco barons when they claim smoking kills no one,.
Wow your a great one at the straw man. First it was 57 confirmed deaths. The nuclear lobby admits that the deaths may be larger.
But the UN that originally estimated 4000 at the time has recently stated that that was an overestimate and there is quote "t. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates ".
Oh and the 200,000 figure was from greenpeace but it turns out that figure was pulled from there arse.
The UN is a consensus report , so they had to have a balance between the nuclear lobby and the health organisations. So it is meangilness. That is a fact that the UN report was a conses report and nothing can be drawn from it. It is as meaingful as getting a consenus between someone who says 6 million jews died in the holocaust and someone who says none died,.
Greenpeace a are s serious organisation if you want to write them off it shows your real mentailty. Knee jerk reactionery.
@Bllasae I think all of the nuclear power plants fail in any "safety standard", because the simple use of a "standard" admits that it has its limit.
We know that it's only statistics. The more nuclear power plants, and the longer they are in use, we get closer to major problems. Just think about the consequences of catastrophies like Tchernobyl or Fukushima-daichi . do we REALLY want to take this chance ?
We don't use nuclear power for a long time, and look at all the accidents that happened
First of all, if you throw 300 hundred grenades, one of them is going to be a dud, for example, and we've been using nuclear power for close to 60 years, with 3 accidents, 1 in the United States. It IS worth the risk for a renewable, safe, clean source of energy.
@Bllasae It is true. 'Radiation' in this context means radioactive isotopes. These are atoms with an unstable number of neutrons in them. Coal plants aren't regulated on radioactive emissions, and so are free to emit how ever much radon, radium, thorium, etc. that happens to be in the coal that was mined. Fun fact: one of the earliest sources of radioactive isotopes is coal ash--this is where Marie-Curie got a great deal of her test samples. (Uranium mines didn't exist then)
How the heck is nuclear power unreliable?? It has run nonstop for 40 years in Ontario. That's right NON STOP, day and night 365.26 days a year. It reduces the need for fossil plants therefore making the world a greener place. So stop slandering nuclear power because it has done so much for you and gets no respect from you. Its powering your computer right now as you read this. So if you are opposed to nuclear power stop using power. Go buy a solar panel for your roof and 2 or 3 wind gens
Greenpeace sure is AGAINST a lot of stuff . . . because it's easy to be against things without proposing workable solutions. Why don't you lazy hippies go think about things for a while, even ponder them perhaps, and get back to me when you have alternatives, rather than blind opposition.
Click at drixblix, for an example of a projection on a nuclear powerplant with a lightcanon. This happening was dedicated to remember at Tschernobyl and was at the 26th April 2006. (20 years after the MCA)
Nuclear waste still gets into the environment, and despite something working, it won't be done if it's too expensive to operate. Storing CO2 underground does not solve the problem, it's almost literally brushing it under the rug.
How? How does it leak into the environment, if it was because of the Sixties, then you need to come out of the past and start living in the present. Nuclear power is a safe and highly effective source. You can put nuclear almost anywhere, you can't do that with wind, tidal and wave. Also, Biomass is also a terrible option, you mix food and your fuel. Just like ethanol. Not to mention almost all of these can't run 24/7, but nuclear can. It can deliver humongous loads of electricity when needed.
Nuclear waste is not eliminated by reprocessing, and simply using water in reprocessing leads to contamination as water evaporates or leaks. Who's going to pay for the expensive reprocessing? A mixture of renewable sources is a safer, greener, and more secure choice.
you know renewable energies are never gonna provide enough power to support our current civilisation, as such all these middle class whiners need to realise that there lifestyles are dependant upon these things they hate. So they have to decide what about there cushy life they want to give up.
Nuclear powerplants are seriously dangerous if something goes wrong..take a look at Saudi Arabia and some other arabic states, they get rich like hell from selling oil to gas guzzling countries, what they`re doing now is building entire cities based on green energy, they`ve seen the future..oil, coal and nuclear plants will soon be stone age tech compared to what`s coming.
Hehe, this is a really good use of media. It sets aside that there is not a good background to be anti-nuclear, presenting the only two supporting facts that are actually out there, and makes use if its colors and quik story line to make you forget about it. Well done :)
When it comes down to it this is Greenpeace's logic: "Nuclear may be good, but it's not perfect, so we should stick with coal, which is bad."
Come on you anti-nuke people, forget Greenpeace and focus on science based solutions. Being wrong about something doesn't make you stupid, but refusing to change when you're shown to be wrong does. Greenpeace is stuck in March 28 1979, come join us in 2008.
There is no greenpeace side of the story. The commercial sums up the stupid side of the story. However greenpeace does not have a monopoly on stupidity. They propose odd-ball solutions combining solar wind and hydro.. but they are mostly against hydro power. Then Biomass(?!) should supply the base load at night, nevermind that would put particulate matter into our lungs and kill far more then nuclear does.
do you guys have a link to the original commercial? i am writing paper about uranium mining protests in ontario and am looking for the original. this one is great, too!
People act as if we haven't advanced technologically in the field of nuclear power in over 50 years. Chernobyl and 3 mile island had different types of reactors then are being built now. People are just afraid of the word nuclear, and imagine hiroshima and nagasaki and then make up their minds that it is unsafe.
P.S.- Heres a question I've been wondering about. Why do people not listen to what scientist and engineers have to say? Most say it is a safe and viable energy source.
dwight2121 - you seem to pro nuclear - thats ok so am I and guess what people he is right. Nuclear plants even with three mile Island and Chernobyl accidents and the Japan incidents there have been fewer deaths attributed to our energy production then oil or coal or even Hydro. And for the power consumption requirements of this world we would never be able to use solar on Earth we would need to collect it in space then transfer to us here. Not really practical.
They want real clarity. If they don't want nuclear energy than they can move to the artic and stop using the power that is created by nuclear power. Give me a break Chernobyl was a RBMK, 3 mile island was a PWR. Canada has what you call a CANDU and any sensible person can see that we have never had a problem with a CANDU. Come on give nuclear a break, everything has it drawbacks, hydro plants destroy ecosystems, wind plants kill birds, and solar, ya right like that will work.
Gotta love how they compare Canadian reactors to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Candu reactors are completely different than the ones used at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and pose no threat to a meltdown.
Wow.. I studied engineering in university and have examined the technical specifications of all our modern nuclear plants and thought nuclear power was safe and cheap, but this 30 second cartoon really won me over!
This is a parody of a current commercial in played on Ontario TV stations. Greenpeace is simply giving their side of the story as the nuclear ad this with theirs.
and what does this tell you? The nuclear folks and greenpeace here are completely bipolar. Who do we believe? All these people do is make up numbers and speculate. Someone should really come out with a decent ad showing real stats and posting thorough sources throughout its duration.
nuclear energy is safe these days, compared to the 50's when they first came out. the masses are afraid of the word 'nuclear.' plutonium waste is now also being used for energy as well, using a fission reaction. we have sufficient tech to store unusable waste until it has decayed completely.
Are you serious? Different isotopes of Uranium decay with half life time of some 160 000 up to several billion years. Mankind will not exist anymore when this decayed completely. Nuclear waste is NOT used for energy, you are talking myth. And no, the plants are not safe. They are operated by men, and these men do make mistakes. You can't avoid these mistakes. And just one more could be your last one.
Greepeace... shut the f**k up
cchapli 1 month ago
i love how so many people are commenting on a anti nuclear ad to show support for nuclear energy.
TheCHMoore 5 months ago
@TheCHMoore
Yes -- let the antis know that this enemy shoots back ;)
GCarty80 2 months ago
you know whats really stupid, in new zealand we have a non nuclear decleration or some shit, that says we wont build nuclear power plants or allow any for of nuclear device,(weapon or nuclear powered ship) into our waters, but we need more power plants to meet our growing demand. and as wind power still sucks and people are protesting a dam proposal becuase it will flood a valley. we could have more then enough power if we would just build a single nuclear power station. and.....
TheCHMoore 5 months ago
unreliable? and wind turbines and pv cells are? get real greenpeace
jimmyreed112 6 months ago 2
Greenpeace never went to high school apparently, or any school for that matter.
stoogemoedude 6 months ago
There is no rational argument here, no positive solution just a derogatory snide voice over. "Feel the fear of nukes and then join the(/our) revolution" is the subtext. Sadly I remember when Greenpeace did interesting work. Now Greenpeace is just so dogmatic and so entrenched in their anti-nuke position I doubt they can ever get back to rational discussion.
oddquiet 9 months ago
@oddquiet
Much of the threat we face from climate change is because Greenpeace stops us building nuclear power stations to replace fossil fuel power stations. Then, when the CO2 numbers keep going up they can bully us into giving them money. Just like any other protection racket -- the threat we pay to be "protected" from comes from those demanding the money in the first place!
GCarty80 2 months ago
Energy revolution ? There is only one potential source of energy that would cause revolution and that's FUSION, not some UNRELIABLE wind or solar, energy... those technologies are based on temporary - natural sources, what about solar energy in night ? or wind during heat wave - high pressure area, with no wind ?
bukvabukva 9 months ago
@bukvabukva
True, although I don't think we have to wait for fusion. Fast breeder reactors or LFTRs are just as good from the sustainability standpoint.
GCarty80 2 months ago
@GCarty80 It’s true, LFTR is amazing.
wispa2 2 months ago
what else do you idiots want to understand that nuclear energy is dangerous..??
just search chernobyl
MrPapa97 9 months ago
@MrPapa97
The RBMK reactor (the only type which can suffer a Chernobyl-type catastrophe) was banned in the West right from the beginning because of its dangers -- you just don't use water cooling and graphite moderation in the same reactor!
And did you know that those deformed babies that the anti-nukes love to parade for their campaigns were caused by foetal alcohol syndrome not radiation? Their pregnant mothers drank to excess while pregnant due to anti-nuclear fearmongering...
GCarty80 2 months ago
Correction: This video is unreliable. I did not see any evidence supporting the arguments stated, nor do I trust the information presented at Greenpeace. Its one thing to state your opinion, but not backing it up and using fear as evidence. Is plain cheating.
peppoj 10 months ago 2
Only idiots approve of nuclear. It's basically the same as in 'There are no libertarians in a financial crisis.'
Wochensau 11 months ago
If you took all of the nuclear waste in the United States, and put it all together, it would fit into a football stadium.
noptig 11 months ago
@noptig Please quote your source
22ness0hayden 11 months ago
@22ness0hayden "The amount of spent fuel removed annually from the approximately 100 reactors in the U.S. would fill a football field to a depth of one foot." -Oracle ThinkQuest Education Foundation Therefore, we've been using nuclear energy for about 50 years, filling a stadium 50 feet up.
noptig 11 months ago
@noptig That's like a kids website?!? I can't find where they claim that but I don't think there will any stats to back it up as it sounds inaccurate. Watch "Into Etertinity" and see what you think of the Finnish estimate - 300,000 tonnes worldwide and growing! Bear in mind this waste will still be dangerous to future generations in 1000 years time!!!
22ness0hayden 11 months ago
@22ness0hayden It won't be harmful when its in a giant concrete vault inside of a mountain
noptig 11 months ago
@noptig That depends doesn't it. Watch the video
22ness0hayden 11 months ago
@noptig You don't seem to comprehend that this stuff will be around longer than your bloodline, maybe even longer than the human species. You don't seem to comprehend that the land will change in that time, possibly opening up any such vaults. You don't seem to grasp that it is around people between plant and storage. You don't seem to grasp that it will build up and up, by larger and larger amounts if we were full-nuclear. You have no comprehension whatsoever of the topic at hand. STFU.
Haminette 10 months ago
@Haminette Yes I don't know anything about nuclear energy because I forgot I didn't do a Physics Honors final project about Nuclear energy, and then take a test on it. What do tree huggers do for fun? Drive their prius around all day? My physics honors teacher is a huge tree hugger, and drives a prius, and couldn't agree more with expanding nuclear energy.
noptig 10 months ago 2
@noptig
Yes, because he actually wants what's best for the environment, not to ensure that the environmental hazards AREN'T dealt with in order to keep to donations flowing in. Greenpeace is a money-making racket.
GCarty80 2 months ago
@Haminette
Australia (large areas with almost no population, dry climate, no major geological faults) would be a good place to bury radioactive waste. Or better, we should use fast breeder reactors to burn up the long-lived transuranic elements, leaving only fission products which become harmless within 300 years. This will also make far more efficient use of our resources, as would thorium reactors which don't generate transuranic waste in the first place.
GCarty80 2 months ago
my god this is retarded... I hate you greenpeace... you never know what you are talking about
xmichiganfanx 1 year ago
Nuclear waste = not an issue. Can be stored. Only a little of it. No effect to the environment. Spillage = negligible problem when compared to other energy sources and can be dealt with. Chernobyl = Not an issue. It's hyped up for more than it was. It's the only major nuclear failure. We don't stop people from driving cars because it's an "unreliable" way of getting around since hundreds of people die each year from it. Greenpeace propaganda at its finest.
Esoparagon 1 year ago
Wow these people are really stupid. I really think that they just cherry pick through the facts and use them to their advantage. Burning coal is way more harmful to the environment then nuclear energy.
visini14 1 year ago
UNSURE should be UNCLEAR.
ZING!
moksheebs 1 year ago
Nuclear power Unreliable? And Greenpeace is pushing for Solar and Wind energy? We are lucky not to have such idiotic ad's in NZ.
Aqualiteking 1 year ago
Heavy water is a fact. Canada has loads of tritium in its water, that's just not good at all. Nuclear would be great if we had fusion, but right now (with fission) it's not advisable.
MazeleyFanClub 1 year ago 2
eventually...uranium will be depleted till it cant be used...it only lasts 2.5 million years...how long has it been around?
GrantLogan2 1 year ago
Indeed. Plus it will be rediculously expensive once Uranium is nearly depleted.
rattaplan 1 year ago
@rattaplan
but thorium reactors are being made.
Littlebirdsalone 1 year ago
@Littlebirdsalone
That's nice but let's first wait and see if they actually succeed in building 1 and if it lives up to its hype.
rattaplan 1 year ago
@rattaplan
one exists in india right now.
Littlebirdsalone 1 year ago
Chernobyl was a major fuck up by a total dumbass.
Three-Mile Island was corrected and fixed after a partial meltdown. Most nulcear waste is stored underground where it cannot affect anything near it. Or recycled.
This could easily be the ascension from very dirty coal or oil powered plants.
Those who fear changes in life try their best to stop these changes, these idiots and the power to manifest a group of people can become dangerous. We need to stop this festering of idiots.
WasteofTimeofSpace 1 year ago
Comment removed
seraphica09 1 year ago
There's no such thing as good or bad when it comes to the products of science. One cannot label nuclear energy as bad simply because of its destructive potential without considering the benefits that can be reaped from its use. The good or bad nature of power sources would be DEPENDENT ON HOW HUMANITY USES IT, and that would include nuclear power, hydroelectric energy, geothermal energy, fossil fuel use, and even solar and wind power. All of these have adverse effects on us or the environment.
seraphica09 1 year ago
The argument that the pro-nuclear, pro-coal, etc pontiffs NEVER make is JUSTICE: why should those who do NOT want nuclear power be forced to suffer from accidents & costs created by the nuclear lobby?
Each person should be allowed to pick their own poison - death by freezing, coal, nuclear, decapitation by windmill, falling off solar roof etc.
Problem is: nuclear, coal, oil people force THEIR poison on others FAR more than the windmill, solar, etc folks EVER have.
duck24x 2 years ago
Even if the nuclear waste problem were magically solved tomorrow, the cost of creating nuclear plants is so overwhelmingly idiotic and insane. It will impoverish the planet.
Really stupid "have every form of energy in the mix just to have it in the mix" policy, when some of those forms - nuclear, biofuels, "clean" coal - have been proven wasteful and polluting.
ALL effort should go ONLY solar, wind, geothermal, and wave energy - AND reduced population & consumption.
duck24x 2 years ago
@duck24x YOU ARE SO NAIVE! if you really think nuclear energy costs more than ANY other source of energy you should really do some research on the internet. FYI its about 0.3 cents per kWh for nuclear energy vs 8,47 DOLLAR per kWh for solar energy. your stupidity annoys me
LeonOfich 1 year ago
@LeonOfich Add in the costs of cleanup of places like Chernobyl & Three Mile Island. Costs that come out of taxes. Same for massive oil spills like the Exxon Valdez & BP in the Gulf of Mexico. Before spewing shit from corporate propaganda religion, add in ALL the costs that never get internalized. Tell your theories of cost to the people who lost their livelihoods due to the Exxon Valdez, which Exxon still has not paid them back for.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x
but most nuclear energy plants are already made, so right now they are saving money
also solar and wind take up huge amounts of land and costs lots of money to construct. Also they arent stable enough to support a country on their own. Also wave power and wind power hurt many many animals
Littlebirdsalone 1 year ago
no nuclear power
scarvasa 2 years ago
That is not a sensible argument. Terrorists have tried to attack nuclear power plants. Your logic is arrogant and weak, and wrong.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
Hydro electricity provides 99% of Norways energy.
It is not irrational to fear a energy source which could wipe out millions of people one on terror attack. Was it irrational of Victims of Hiroshima to fear nuclear radiation affects. What are on about? How on earth can it save humanity when it kills more people than any other energy source when an accident occurs. You are a dogmatic extremist.
You are the enemy of the people who will die form this energy source and suffer mutations.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
Please Please Please be more cynical Evgenia Stepanova, of the Ukrainian government's Scientific Center for Radiation Medicine, has said: "We're overwhelmed by thyroid cancers, leukemias and genetic mutations that are not recorded in the WHO data and which were practically unknown 20 years ago." The WHO is a political body corrupted by poilitical conderations. Why can't you be more cynical of the nuclear lobby what is in it for you?
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
No the UN report as I have said is a consenus report with political influences rather than facts, where they took the figure from the nuclear industry and the health organization and did a consensus figure it is like taking a consensus report between a health organization and tobacco companies on how many people cigarettes kill.
An airliner attack would easily break down such walls and cause nuclear accidents. A10 inch steel wall would not protect. Look at a bunker buster bomb,
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
Look at the video /watch?v=FVkYe8tNZX4 Bunker busters can blast through 2 concrete walls let alone one. Walls are not indestructible. ;
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
faithdelusion Ofcourse a book giving the case for nuclear power will give the lower estimates. You ignore the higher estimates. You are looking the UN consensus report. There are many estimates that are higher that you book casually ignores.,
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
250,000 people died as a result of Chernobyl according g to health experts the nuclear industry claim less than 100 people died. I suppose you believe tobacco barons when they claim smoking kills no one,.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
I believe independent researchers that say those large numbers are a joke and the data is inconclusive.
TheFluffyDuck 2 years ago
Nuclear funded lobby groups claim under 100 people died, health organizations claim 250,000 died. Who do you believe.?
So why was Chernobyl evacuated? Was that a joke too?
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
Wow your a great one at the straw man. First it was 57 confirmed deaths. The nuclear lobby admits that the deaths may be larger.
But the UN that originally estimated 4000 at the time has recently stated that that was an overestimate and there is quote "t. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates ".
Oh and the 200,000 figure was from greenpeace but it turns out that figure was pulled from there arse.
DO YOUR RESEARCH DUDE!!!!
TheFluffyDuck 2 years ago
The UN is a consensus report , so they had to have a balance between the nuclear lobby and the health organisations. So it is meangilness. That is a fact that the UN report was a conses report and nothing can be drawn from it. It is as meaingful as getting a consenus between someone who says 6 million jews died in the holocaust and someone who says none died,.
Greenpeace a are s serious organisation if you want to write them off it shows your real mentailty. Knee jerk reactionery.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
This ad is UNrealistic.
TheFluffyDuck 2 years ago
Nuclear power is awesome, dig up radioactive material, use it, put it back in the ground in far safer facilities.
The world is just as dirty as it was.
HWGuyEG 2 years ago
It's clean and green, bitch.
Bllasae 2 years ago 9
Comment removed
thetrailduster 1 year ago
Comment removed
thetrailduster 1 year ago
@Bllasae Ask Japan if it's clean !
WWRECKA 11 months ago
@WWRECKA
Failed safety standards.
Bllasae 11 months ago
@Bllasae I think all of the nuclear power plants fail in any "safety standard", because the simple use of a "standard" admits that it has its limit.
We know that it's only statistics. The more nuclear power plants, and the longer they are in use, we get closer to major problems. Just think about the consequences of catastrophies like Tchernobyl or Fukushima-daichi . do we REALLY want to take this chance ?
We don't use nuclear power for a long time, and look at all the accidents that happened
WWRECKA 11 months ago
@WWRECKA
First of all, if you throw 300 hundred grenades, one of them is going to be a dud, for example, and we've been using nuclear power for close to 60 years, with 3 accidents, 1 in the United States. It IS worth the risk for a renewable, safe, clean source of energy.
Bllasae 11 months ago
@Bllasae It is worthit untill it doesn't blow next to were you live .
WWRECKA 11 months ago
@WWRECKA
When has that happened to you?
Bllasae 11 months ago
@Bllasae You see that's EXACTLY the problem i am pointing. The thing is I care about those people who suffer from these catastrophies.
WWRECKA 10 months ago
@Bllasae Exactly, and the one in the United States wasn't close to the Ukraine in magnitude
noptig 11 months ago
@noptig
Exactly, it was only a partial meltdown.
Bllasae 11 months ago
@Bllasae Idiot.
Wochensau 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wochensau
Haha, it's quite apparent you are, you liberal asshole.
Bllasae 11 months ago
1. Breeder reactors re-use nuclear waste and cut down the amount of waste material.
2. Chernobyl was a giant screw up on the Russians' part; technology and safety standards have come a long way since then.
3. No one was harmed as a result of Three Mile Island, and the amount of radiation released was LESS than the average coal plant puts out in a month.
4. Modern, safe reactors have so many safety systems and failsafes that it is literally impossible for a meltdown to occur.
Optimizt 2 years ago 2
3. I didn't know that coal plants released radiation.
Bllasae 2 years ago 5
I'd rather live nextdoor to a nuclear plant than 200 miles downwind from a coal plant, since one gives off steam and the other smoke.
They're disturbingly dirty unless the facility has extremely advanced emission reduction facilities.
HWGuyEG 2 years ago
Oh yeah and Sulfer which damages the ozone layer.
TheFluffyDuck 2 years ago
@Bllasae It is true. 'Radiation' in this context means radioactive isotopes. These are atoms with an unstable number of neutrons in them. Coal plants aren't regulated on radioactive emissions, and so are free to emit how ever much radon, radium, thorium, etc. that happens to be in the coal that was mined. Fun fact: one of the earliest sources of radioactive isotopes is coal ash--this is where Marie-Curie got a great deal of her test samples. (Uranium mines didn't exist then)
coldsn 1 year ago
@coldsn
Wow. Thanks.
Bllasae 1 year ago
One word: Fusion
When we build the first fusion reactor green peace cannot bitch about that no matter how hard they try.
taliban0king 2 years ago
You just know they will make some bullshit argument like:
"the amount of C02 that requires to transport sea water to the plant costs more than a windmill."
or
"We we run out of freshwater causeing us to get sea water that will then increase salinity blah blah blah"
Just make up some baseless crap and you have a greenpeace argument.
TheFluffyDuck 2 years ago
How the heck is nuclear power unreliable?? It has run nonstop for 40 years in Ontario. That's right NON STOP, day and night 365.26 days a year. It reduces the need for fossil plants therefore making the world a greener place. So stop slandering nuclear power because it has done so much for you and gets no respect from you. Its powering your computer right now as you read this. So if you are opposed to nuclear power stop using power. Go buy a solar panel for your roof and 2 or 3 wind gens
hinske11 2 years ago 3
The reactor cores are disabled for maintenance after a large number of years, stainless steel does rust after a while.
Otherwise they're on 24/7 producing tons of electricity and harmless steam... sometimes leaking water, potable water, onoez.
HWGuyEG 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nuclear power plants are not the solution to global warming. So why not get a low emission nuclear powered car?
alexcheetah79 3 years ago
That's what you do get if you charge an electric car at night. Over 50% nuclear at night in Ontario, right?
Number1BadBoyInnit 2 years ago 4
Three Mile Island was a success in Nuclear Safety!
raptors222222 3 years ago 2
What a load of croc. Claiming nmuclear is unreliable, with an availability of 85-90%, compared to win and solar power of 30-40% is bull.
Talking about Chernobyl is just stupid because the Chernobyl reactor was a uniquely *poor* Soviet design which noone else would even go near.
TMI is even more stupid of them to mention because that was in effect a success story: noone got killed, injured or sick. The barriers worked!
This ad is just plain dishonest. Greenpeace lies.
mkarnerfors 3 years ago 4
Greenpeace sure is AGAINST a lot of stuff . . . because it's easy to be against things without proposing workable solutions. Why don't you lazy hippies go think about things for a while, even ponder them perhaps, and get back to me when you have alternatives, rather than blind opposition.
royalewihcheese 3 years ago 2
Click at drixblix, for an example of a projection on a nuclear powerplant with a lightcanon. This happening was dedicated to remember at Tschernobyl and was at the 26th April 2006. (20 years after the MCA)
green greetings from germany
Tim
drixblix 3 years ago
Nuclear = nuclear waste = harmful substance that does not go away for 1000s of years.
masterstghm 3 years ago
Ever heard of reprocessing?
raptors222222 3 years ago 2
Reprocessing is expensive and is still harmful to the environment.
masterstghm 3 years ago
But it eliminates 97% of the waste. Plus you could cap the CO2 emissions produced by the plant and put it in an underground storage.
raptors222222 3 years ago
Nuclear waste still gets into the environment, and despite something working, it won't be done if it's too expensive to operate. Storing CO2 underground does not solve the problem, it's almost literally brushing it under the rug.
masterstghm 3 years ago
How? How does it leak into the environment, if it was because of the Sixties, then you need to come out of the past and start living in the present. Nuclear power is a safe and highly effective source. You can put nuclear almost anywhere, you can't do that with wind, tidal and wave. Also, Biomass is also a terrible option, you mix food and your fuel. Just like ethanol. Not to mention almost all of these can't run 24/7, but nuclear can. It can deliver humongous loads of electricity when needed.
raptors222222 3 years ago
Nuclear waste is not eliminated by reprocessing, and simply using water in reprocessing leads to contamination as water evaporates or leaks. Who's going to pay for the expensive reprocessing? A mixture of renewable sources is a safer, greener, and more secure choice.
masterstghm 3 years ago
Until they blow up the windmills. Then were screwed.
raptors222222 3 years ago 4
That's why I said a variety/assortment of sources. ...but what are you even talking about?
masterstghm 3 years ago
Never mind, I think Nuclear can be combined with hydro, wind and solar. There is no silver bullet to this problem. Even you have to agree.
raptors222222 3 years ago
I suppose maybe some Nuclear, but not mostly Nuclear.
masterstghm 3 years ago
you know renewable energies are never gonna provide enough power to support our current civilisation, as such all these middle class whiners need to realise that there lifestyles are dependant upon these things they hate. So they have to decide what about there cushy life they want to give up.
JD1010101110 3 years ago
Nuclear powerplants are seriously dangerous if something goes wrong..take a look at Saudi Arabia and some other arabic states, they get rich like hell from selling oil to gas guzzling countries, what they`re doing now is building entire cities based on green energy, they`ve seen the future..oil, coal and nuclear plants will soon be stone age tech compared to what`s coming.
fyrnifede 3 years ago 2
True, but you need a short term solution. Nuclear works!
raptors222222 3 years ago
1 star
yojox 3 years ago 3
Hehe, this is a really good use of media. It sets aside that there is not a good background to be anti-nuclear, presenting the only two supporting facts that are actually out there, and makes use if its colors and quik story line to make you forget about it. Well done :)
ripeonion 3 years ago
When it comes down to it this is Greenpeace's logic: "Nuclear may be good, but it's not perfect, so we should stick with coal, which is bad."
Come on you anti-nuke people, forget Greenpeace and focus on science based solutions. Being wrong about something doesn't make you stupid, but refusing to change when you're shown to be wrong does. Greenpeace is stuck in March 28 1979, come join us in 2008.
NorskeDivision 3 years ago
There is no greenpeace side of the story. The commercial sums up the stupid side of the story. However greenpeace does not have a monopoly on stupidity. They propose odd-ball solutions combining solar wind and hydro.. but they are mostly against hydro power. Then Biomass(?!) should supply the base load at night, nevermind that would put particulate matter into our lungs and kill far more then nuclear does.
NorskeDivision 3 years ago
do you guys have a link to the original commercial? i am writing paper about uranium mining protests in ontario and am looking for the original. this one is great, too!
juanitagangle 3 years ago
People act as if we haven't advanced technologically in the field of nuclear power in over 50 years. Chernobyl and 3 mile island had different types of reactors then are being built now. People are just afraid of the word nuclear, and imagine hiroshima and nagasaki and then make up their minds that it is unsafe.
P.S.- Heres a question I've been wondering about. Why do people not listen to what scientist and engineers have to say? Most say it is a safe and viable energy source.
jagsfan8203 4 years ago
chernobyl was a terrible reactor, and even then they had to go out of their way to blow it up
three mile island didn't really do anything though. mostly it just got bad press and cost money
ucihapokujin 3 years ago 4
dwight2121 - you seem to pro nuclear - thats ok so am I and guess what people he is right. Nuclear plants even with three mile Island and Chernobyl accidents and the Japan incidents there have been fewer deaths attributed to our energy production then oil or coal or even Hydro. And for the power consumption requirements of this world we would never be able to use solar on Earth we would need to collect it in space then transfer to us here. Not really practical.
BryanCV14 4 years ago 2
They want real clarity. If they don't want nuclear energy than they can move to the artic and stop using the power that is created by nuclear power. Give me a break Chernobyl was a RBMK, 3 mile island was a PWR. Canada has what you call a CANDU and any sensible person can see that we have never had a problem with a CANDU. Come on give nuclear a break, everything has it drawbacks, hydro plants destroy ecosystems, wind plants kill birds, and solar, ya right like that will work.
dwight2121 4 years ago
I can't wait until the US AP-1000 reactors come alive!
raptors222222 3 years ago 2
Gotta love how they compare Canadian reactors to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Candu reactors are completely different than the ones used at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and pose no threat to a meltdown.
chemicalecho 4 years ago 2
Wow.. I studied engineering in university and have examined the technical specifications of all our modern nuclear plants and thought nuclear power was safe and cheap, but this 30 second cartoon really won me over!
batukhan 4 years ago
This is a parody of a current commercial in played on Ontario TV stations. Greenpeace is simply giving their side of the story as the nuclear ad this with theirs.
skinnybitchvegan 4 years ago
and what does this tell you? The nuclear folks and greenpeace here are completely bipolar. Who do we believe? All these people do is make up numbers and speculate. Someone should really come out with a decent ad showing real stats and posting thorough sources throughout its duration.
quackerzdb88 4 years ago
nuclear energy is safe these days, compared to the 50's when they first came out. the masses are afraid of the word 'nuclear.' plutonium waste is now also being used for energy as well, using a fission reaction. we have sufficient tech to store unusable waste until it has decayed completely.
chickenmonkeyllama 4 years ago
Are you serious? Different isotopes of Uranium decay with half life time of some 160 000 up to several billion years. Mankind will not exist anymore when this decayed completely. Nuclear waste is NOT used for energy, you are talking myth. And no, the plants are not safe. They are operated by men, and these men do make mistakes. You can't avoid these mistakes. And just one more could be your last one.
Toji85 4 years ago
uranium is usually not that dangerous at those levels. unless it was a very high concentration and u ground it up and sniffed it.
chickenmonkeyllama 4 years ago
You people are the ones opposing the plants that can shorten the decay length.
raptors222222 3 years ago
Propaganda! Either way, canadians seem to be well inform since ontario is getting a new nuclear reactor, good for them!
andresfusion 4 years ago 2
Very good video
asturiasverde 4 years ago